League of Legends Wiki:Discussions/The Willbach Issue
I feel this should be on a topic of its own, seeing as it does not move the discussion it was originally placed in forward: --Willbachbakal (talk) 02:11, May 25, 2014 (UTC) The Willbach issue I've figured out the big reason why these discussions can not move forward and I've decided to call it "The Willbach Issue." Thinking back there were some other users who acted this way but none so good at it as Willbach here. He completely blocks further discussions on an issue by not only being unmovable in his opinions but also by not just stating his opinion and letting that be that. Every single post in every single thread he has to reply to with mountains of text that are 90% full of him either dancing around with words or repeating himself from other posts. There's no room for actual discussion because he derails every post by making it about him, his opinion on the subject and how everyone else is wrong not only on a factual level but a conceptual level, they just don't see the issue in the right way, the way that Will sees it. He basically becoming like an ulting Galio in the middle of a jungle pathway, taunting all who come near to stop what they're doing and fight him in an uphill battle. The solution to this problem, as I see it, is to realize that all of these posts come from one person, you don't have to reply to every single post of his, hell you don't even have to reply to one. The points he brings up are pretty much the same points he brings up in every post, just worded differently. Also realize that a discussion isn't about winning or losing or us vs them, despite how much Will wants to make it so, it's about the sharing of ideas and collaborating to make a better final result. As is Will is not only stymieing progressive discussions but also derailing all potential discussions on issues with the way he not only talks to other users but the way that he just takes up more page space than anyone else with his replies. 22:03, May 24, 2014 (UTC) :I'm really saddened by this. Of all the people here, you were the one I thought was least liable to make personal attacks. This is completely out of line, especially coming from an admin. :I'm not making this discussion about me. None of the posts here have been about my person, and I have taken great care to justify my viewpoints with structured argumentation and reasoning. I may be the most vocal member of this debate, but I am not derailing it in the slightest. All of the sections here, save for this one, are clearly relevant to the issue at hand, and I am proposing changes that could both move this discussion forward and help the wiki as a whole. Please also note that these changes were discussed in collaboration with another user (an admin, in fact, whom you can contact for confirmation). I have shown in my above posts that, although I have strong opinions about the subject, I am willing to compromise on certain aspects (a disclaimer for cost analyses, for example). :You accuse me of repeating posts, yet a lot of arguments you and others like you put out had clearly been answered in said posts. The issue of diminishing returns on resistances, for example, had been addressed multiple times, yet it was Deshiba repeating himself without taking heed to contrary arguments, when his position (that armor and MR provide diminishing returns) had not only been disproven multiple times by my points, but also by the health, armor and magic resistance articles themselves. It is your side that is guilty of repeating themselves without paying attention to opposing viewpoints and arguments, not mine. :Moreover, the statement that I have not moved the discussions at all is completely untrue. Some of the points I helped develop: *Gold value/efficiency being a measure of an item's stats and not its power. *Gold value/efficiency not determining an item's effectiveness on champions. *Gold value/efficiency not being valid as the sole determiner to an item build. *Gold value/efficiency having strong in-game justification and informativity more than sufficient to keep it on the wiki. :All of these have become the majority opinion, despite your objections. I have clearly contributed to these discussions and moved them forward. On the other hand, there is a mountain of evidence showing some of your proponents, namely ClariS, Deshiba and even TehAnonymous, acting in a completely uncivil way, derailing discussions, making them about their person, and generally contributing negatively to the conversation. The post you just added is more fuel to the fire. I can pull quotes for each user on demand. It is unnerving that so many of these people are in positions of responsibility and power, where exemplary conduct is a must. If you have a problem against me, I would rather we move it to the relevant thread or message wall, since putting it in this discussion really would make part of it all about me. A personal attack like this does not belong in a discussion you yourself wanted to remain civil. The discussion was, right up until this point, civil, and it should stay that way. I'm playing by the rules of the game, and so should you. --Willbachbakal (talk) 22:57, May 24, 2014 (UTC)